[ARC5] A10 Warthog

[mkdorney at aol.com]

     I would take a fighter that was designed and built with modern technology, which is far superior to the 1950's technology the Phantom designed used, any time.  Now-a-days, the Phantom would only wind up being a smoking hole in the ground. 
 
Good in it's day, but technology constantly moves on.  Would you take on an Abrams tank with a Sherman? (Only  if you had a death wish).
 
But enough talk of aircraft.  This chat group is about radios.  Now back to our regularly scheduled program. 
 
73
Mark
WW2RDO 
 
In a message dated 7/4/2018 10:25:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, kb2vtl at gmail.com writes:

 
I’d take one any day!

 
Peter

On Jul 4, 2018, at 10:01 PM, mkdorney at aol.com wrote:


The jet engines of the F-4 were not fuel efficient.  When fuel burns inefficiently, smoke is produced along with the exhaust.  If the engines on the Phantom did burn fuel more efficiently, there would be no smoke.  However, while burning fuel more efficiently, thrust would be diminished.  The USAF and US Navy were more interested in speed that with fuel efficiency.  Hence, in the Phantom's case, the smoke was acceptable.
 
The F-4 Phantom was proof that, given enough forward thrust, even a brick could fly.
 
Mark
WW2RDO
 
In a message dated 7/4/2018 9:51:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
kb2vtl at gmail.com writes:
 
 Unburnt fuel does not produce thrust!


Peter

> On Jul 4, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Mkdorney via ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> 
> It smoked because their GE jet engines were not the most fuel efficient. The “smoke” was unburnt JP-4. When afterburners were lit, this fuel was ignited. 
> 
> Mark
> WW2RDO
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Kenneth G. Gordon <kgordon2006 at frontier.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 3 Jul 2018 at 18:13, jeepp wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jack and others,
>>> The Six was an outstanding aircraft. The B model being slightly faster than the single-seat A 
>>> model. The two types of AA missles and the AIR-2A special weapon did (could) do the job. At 
>>> Langley in the 70's, they put a gun pod on several airframes and they turned out to be truly good 
>>> at ACM. As I recall, they fought against F-4's and came out on top half the time. No smoke, 
>>> either...
>> 
>> As I understand it, no one ever figured out why the F-4 smoked.
>> 
>> Ken W7EKB
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20180704/ac3adacc/attachment.html>